PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Intended prosecution for failing to identify driver, IP for failing to identify driver - even though i provided the details
royalmarineguy12...
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



here is a brief timeline

june 2018 - speeding offence detected by camera. NIP sent to address
june 2018 - email response to police providing details of driver minus details unknown (d/l number and dob)
Sep 2018 - further requirement sent to me - stating driver named by me hadn't been located.
Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner- partners friend had taken the car without partners knowledge at party both attended. partners friend admitted taking vehicle.
jan 2019 - file reviewed - decision to prosecute - because full details not provided (no dob and d/l num) of partners friend - friendship had ended (short term affair)

partner was having an affair which has no ended. no contact btn 2 parties.

I did all I could provided details of person my partner claimed to have the car at the time of offence. Partner signed it and explained the situation. Charge claims no details provided for partner (who had car on date NOT Time of offence) even though in letter they asked for driver at the time of offence which we provided. I was at home nursing baby.

now I have choice to go guilty plus fine or go to trial.

I think they are being unreasonable - under s172 of RTA - I provided details of person /partner claimed was driving - partner signed this statement as true.

shall I go to trial or are my chances slim?


thank you all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:16
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,356
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
now I have choice to go guilty plus fine or go to trial.

I think they are being unreasonable - under s172 of RTA - I provided details of person /partner claimed was driving - partner signed this statement as true.


Then you plead not guilty and defend the charge in court. With hindsight what you should have done is reply naming your partner - they were the one who had the car and that would have fully satisfied your legal obligation. Your partner would then have received a s172 notice in their name and they would then nominate the friend.

It is for the court to decide whether your actions did meet the requirements of s172, but your case is potentially strong. The suggestion would be that this un-contactable person has been invented to avoid the speeding charge, so your partner will have to be in court to give the evidence about this other person who took the car - you can't as you have no direct knowledge about what happened and who was driving.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,713
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
I did all I could provided details of person my partner claimed to have the car at the time of offence. Partner signed it and explained the situation.

The request was sent to you but your partner signed it?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,444
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



We've seen that scenario a few times

Failing to follow the exact instructions has a habit of ending badly

For all the police know, the situation is the same as the Fiona Onasanya case - the Labour MP who left her brother to fill in the form, naming a person that couldn't be traced
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Should have just named your partner as keeper?

Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:59
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29) *
Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.

There is no suggestion the car was tocked, just lent to someone who's full details are not known to the RK. Did the police ever send a s172 to the partner who had first borrowed the car?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:09
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



I am the registered keeper so document came to me: I filled in form and inserted details of person that was driving as provided by my partner. partner added a signed separated statement/cover letter outlining what had happened.

The document states I shouldn't allow anyone to complete so I completed it given the info I had been provided to me



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29) *
Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.

There is no suggestion the car was tocked, just lent to someone who's full details are not known to the RK. Did the police ever send a s172 to the partner who had first borrowed the car?



no police didn't contact them although details were provided in signed statement which I submitted when completing NIP

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:33) *
We've seen that scenario a few times

Failing to follow the exact instructions has a habit of ending badly

For all the police know, the situation is the same as the Fiona Onasanya case - the Labour MP who left her brother to fill in the form, naming a person that couldn't be traced

I filled in form and partner added a signed statement of what transpired

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
I did all I could provided details of person my partner claimed to have the car at the time of offence. Partner signed it and explained the situation.

The request was sent to you but your partner signed it?



I filled and signed NIP. partner added a signed statement/cover letter explaining what had happened. I filled in details provided by partner of person driving car at time of offence.

QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
now I have choice to go guilty plus fine or go to trial.

I think they are being unreasonable - under s172 of RTA - I provided details of person /partner claimed was driving - partner signed this statement as true.


Then you plead not guilty and defend the charge in court. With hindsight what you should have done is reply naming your partner - they were the one who had the car and that would have fully satisfied your legal obligation. Your partner would then have received a s172 notice in their name and they would then nominate the friend.

It is for the court to decide whether your actions did meet the requirements of s172, but your case is potentially strong. The suggestion would be that this un-contactable person has been invented to avoid the speeding charge, so your partner will have to be in court to give the evidence about this other person who took the car - you can't as you have no direct knowledge about what happened and who was driving.


I should have but because the document isn't precise it made things slightly complicated in my mind. the request was for who was driving at time of offence.

I discussed with partner (who had the car) and he gave me details of driver at the time....I thought that satisfied what was being asked of me. I think I will contest this matter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,713
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Ok, so they say the prosecution is proceeding because 'full' details weren't provided. i.e. dob and d/l number?

I presume they sent a NIP to the provided details and got no response...

Did the form invite an e-mail response?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think you should contest. The requirement under s172 is that "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required", based on what you have said, the police should have issued a s172 notice to your partner, as that was the obvious next investigatory step. After all, the police can use s172 to compel your partner to provide information, you can't compel anyone to do anything. It sounds to me like you gave what information you could reasonably be expected to give.

The police will want to present evidence by written statement, this will typically be a statement from a person in the back-office which deals with the paperwork. You would need to serve notice that you object to their evidence being given by means of a witness statement, so they will be required to come and give evidence in person. You can then cross-examine them on whether the information you provided could have lead to the identification of the driver, so as to paint a picture that maybe the police could have identified the driver if they had sent a s172 to your partner, and the only reason this didn't happen is because the police didn't bother sending him such a notice.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:43


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:37) *
Ok, so they say the prosecution is proceeding because 'full' details weren't provided. i.e. dob and d/l number?

I presume they sent a NIP to the provided details and got no response...

Did the form invite an e-mail response?


I assume so. After the initial NIP, they sent another NIP to me once again indicating they couldn't reach the named driver at the time and asked for the info once agina. I provided what information I had (from my partner) who had car on the day with my partner adding a signed cover letter once more.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:41) *
I think you should contest. The requirement under s172 is that "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required", based on what you have said, the police should have issued a s172 notice to your partner, as that was the obvious next investigatory step. After all, the police can use s172 to compel your partner to provide information, you can't compel anyone to do anything. It sounds to me like you gave what information you could reasonably be expected to give.

The police will want to present evidence by written statement, this will typically be a statement from a person in the back-office which deals with the paperwork. You would need to serve notice that you object to their evidence being given by means of a witness statement, so they will be required to come and give evidence in person. You can then cross-examine them on whether the information you provided could have lead to the identification of the driver, so as to paint a picture that maybe the police could have identified the driver if they had sent a s172 to your partner, and the only reason this didn't happen is because the police didn't bother sending him such a notice.



these are my exact thoughts! My partner provided his name and address on signed cover letter confirming that the information on the NIP was provided by them and how the situation arose.

My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 09:02
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,910
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14) *
My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.

You are right. Although you will be able to take your baby into the court building you will not be permitted to take him/her into the courtroom. You really need to arrange for a sitter as you may be hanging around for a while and most courtrooms are not the most conducive of places. You should be given reasonable notice of your date.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 09:02) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14) *
My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.

You are right. Although you will be able to take your baby into the court building you will not be permitted to take him/her into the courtroom. You really need to arrange for a sitter as you may be hanging around for a while and most courtrooms are not the most conducive of places. You should be given reasonable notice of your date.


I will keep this thread open and update all on proceedings. many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



What's the latest document you have received?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,713
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



And their stance says?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:48
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That letter sounds like a single justice procedure notice.......


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Rusty
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:54
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 566
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
From: Somewhere oop north
Member No.: 984



Isn't there a distinction in the quality/scope of information required between registered keeper, keeper and driver? In this case you as registered keeper know who the keeper is but are requested to name the driver which you have done? I'm not sure the form asks you to name the keeper, so why should you have named your partner?

Anyone? - Is there a defense here? as neither the keeper or driver is the information required limited to only that information in your power to give? I can't remember the court case that focused on this in the past.

Maybe I'm totally up the wrong tree here - just a thought..

edit - found it - Mohindra

"It is important to note that the obligation imposed by section 172(2) differs if the addressee of the requirement is not one who is keeping the vehicle. Under section 172(2)(a) it is an obligation to give the information required. Under section 172(b), if the person addressed is not the keeper, it is an obligation to give any information which it is in that person's power to give and which may lead to the identification of the driver."

This post has been edited by Mr Rusty: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,910
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:54) *
Isn't there a distinction in the quality/scope of information required between registered keeper, keeper and driver? In this case you as registered keeper know who the keeper is but are requested to name the driver which you have done? I'm not sure the form asks you to name the keeper, so why should you have named your partner?

The legislation does not mention the Registered Keeper (as far as the information required goes). It only differentiates between “the person keeping the vehicle” and “any other person”. Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle” he has the lower obligation to provide “…any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver”. He knew who was keeping the vehicle and he knew who was driving. He provided all he knew about those two parties. It is not reasonable for him to be expected to know the DOB and DL number of somebody to whom his ex-partner lent the vehicle and he gave all the information he had. It is not his responsibility to conduct enquiries on behalf of the police and I would suggest the police should have issued a S172 request to the person they were told was keeping the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:33
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)

I agree with NewJudge, the police cannot expect you to carry out an investigation on their behalf, you gave the information that was available to you. It sounds like you have an SJPN, if you upload a redacted copy we can confirm. If it is an SJPN, and assuming you want to fight it, you need to plead not guilty. I would also enclose, together with the form, a formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 01:47
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



There is certainly an argument the OP was not the keeper at the time, in which case they only had to give information in their power to give, as long as it made it clear the partner was the person keeping the vehicle at the time and that name and address was provided then I think there is the makings of a sound defence.

It’s that which I see as an issue, as the first post states the police believe that that wasn’t provided (and the comment about them only asking for driver details seems to support that), a letter from that person doesn’t help if that information isn’t provided in my opinion making the case more marginal than the two posts above suggest. It certainly comes into the category of information in the power to give that may help identify the driver.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 01:48


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 25th June 2019 - 02:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.